Kline vs. Porcari
Scott Livingston writes:

Perhaps you can help me. I am in search of contractors who have personal knowledge about –and would be willing to furnish an affidavit testifying about — cases where MDOT/SHA/MAA/MTA/MdTA considered a low bidder’s DBE/MBE waiver request but decided to reject all bids.

As you know, in Kline vs. Porcari, SHA is going to reject all bids on Rt. 270 project for which, on March 13, 2008, Kline bid $10.2M and the second low bidder was $600,000 higher. Kline requested a DBE waiver, mostly because it could save $500K + by using the low non-DBE sub rather than base its bid on the expensive DBE sub. Eight months later, in November, SHA denied the waiver. Kline sued Porcari (see Complaint). Kline is seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent SHA from rejecting all bids, among other things (see Preliminary Injunction Memo, attached).

In mid February, 2009, upon “administrative reconsideration,” MDOT ordered SHA to vacate the denial of the DBE waiver because there was not enough information for MDOT to determine whether or not the waiver should be granted.

MDOT suggested that SHA should reject all bids So, effective March 11, all bids will be rejected. SHA will make some design/spec change to cover up the situation.

Anyway, I want to prove in US District Court that rejection of all bids is a pretext, consistent with a pattern SHA uses to continue perpetrating its DBE/ MBE policy. Do you know any other bidders whom MDOT/SHA has similarly injured? We need affidavits by Wednesday. (emphasis added by MTBMA)

Please respond to:

Scott Livingston
410.295.0212 Office
410.295.0213 Fax
301.704.8060 Cell

Please follow and like us: